S
THE great American journalist A.J.
Liebling once wrote, freedom of the
press belongs to whoever owns one. More
proof of that, just in.

I write this with trepidation, and with
faint hope that the weirdos who sent me
unsigned letters denigrating my Jewish
forebears after last year's columns on
Doug Collins have since moved to
Idaho. It's no fun taking the wrong side
in the free-speech wars -- suggesting, for
example, that there are limits to what an
opinion columnist ought to opine, or that
a newspaper owner may be right to draw the
line. But that's my opinion (go ahead,
fire me) and anyway, who said journalism
was supposed to be fun?

Different columnist, same complaint
this time around. It's Grego Felton
of The Vancouver Courier versus the
Canadian
Jewish Congress -- the advocacy group
that challenged Collins and the North
Shore News in front of a B.C. Human Rights
tribunal last year, and lost.

The Courier clash was far shorter and
cheaper for all involved, except, that is,
for Felton, who paid with his freedom to
write what he believes is the truth about
Israel -- i.e., that it's built on the
blood of the Palestinians.

Over the last few years he has penned a
number of columns to that effect,
including one last May in which Israel is
equated with the formerly racist regime in
South Africa: "There is no fundamental
difference between the two apartheids,"
argued Felton, disregarding the million or
so Arabs who are full citizens of Israel,
and the nine who sit as members of the
Knesset.

Felton went on to "marvel at how
successfully the Jewish lobby has used its
financial and political clout to buy,
bribe and bully the U.S. into bankrolling
Israel's existence."

That column netted the Courier losts of
mail, mostly supporting Felton, claims
editor Mick Maloney. It also netted
the editor and his columnist a warning
from their then-boss, Sam Grippo,
CEO of Lower Mainland Publishing, who
apparently didn't put much store in
Maloney's letter count. There are about
10,000 Jews living in the Courier's
free-distribution area, including a good
number of business owners who advertise in
the paper -- or used to. When lawyer and
CJC vice chair Nissan Goldman
called Grippo to complain, he found not
only an open ear but full agreement.

"Sam hated
that column," Goldman told me. "He
called it reprehensible. He told Felton
to stop writing about Israel and the
Palestinians if he wanted to keep his
job."

But last month Felton struck again,
describing the Israeli-Palestinian peace
accord as a "sham" and the militant
Islamic group Hamas as "morally and
legally correct" in its refusal to accept
the legitimacy of the state of Israel.

The phones lit up at the CJC again, but
this time callers got sterner advice:
Forget writing to the editor. Just tell
him to stop delivery.

On Nov. 4, the CJC released a letter to
the community and to the media, explaining
its position: "At a time when the Jewish,
and indeed, the entire world community is
gratified that Israel and the Palestinian
leaders are moving cafeully and cautiusly
forward to a secure and lasting peace in
the Middle East, readers of the Courier
should not be subjected to what amounts to
an endorsement of a terrorist organization
seeking to destroy Israel and to foment a
civil war among the Palestinians."

This time,
Grippo called Goldman -- to say sorry,
that column shouldn't have slipped
through the editorial net. It won't
happen again.

Maloney gave a choked interview with
the Western Jewish Bulletin : "I have
received a directive not to publish any
anti-Israel commentary in my newspaper,"
he said, suggesting that the CJC took
Felton's Hamas comment out of context.
This was echoed by Rafeh Hulays, a
director of the Arab Community Association
of B.C., which countered the CJC press
release with its own, arguing that a full
reading of the column makes it "perfectly
clear" that Felton does not support
Hamas's tactic or objectives." (Not at all
clear to me, but then I suppose I'm
biased.)

The North Shore News chimed in: "The
forces of censorship headed by the
Canadian Jewish Congress continue to
steamroll over any criticism of Israel or
other things Jewish," lamented editor
Timothy Renshaw. "Readers have been
left with the issue half discussed."

I think there was a better case for the
issue being half-discussed when Felton was
the Courier's one and only commentator on
the Middle East. Rafeh Hulays speaks
eloquently about the need for a frank and
balanced debate in the media, and he's
spot on when he says we must not tolerate
the vilification of those who raise the
issue of justice and human rights for the
Palestinian people." The problem is, the
Courier has not (and cannot) supply a
forum for such a debate -- no more so than
the North Shore News could properly
challenge the accepted history of the
Holocaust.

I say this in fondness for the paper
that gave me my start in journalism 22
years ago. The Kerrisdale Courier was a
smart little good-news freebie back then,
and basically still is today -- though not
so little and for the most part
smarter.

The owner knew this, and acted. Which
raises this question: Was the "silencing"
of Felton a violation of his free speech,
or an expression of what civil
libertarians call the "marketplace of
ideas" in full swing?

The latter, I say. Just
as a columnist is within his rights to
express his opinions, readers are within
their rights to find his words offensive,
and to say so -- to the circulation or
sales department. And if those offended
people have numbers behind them, and are
represented by an advocay group, more
power to them. And if the owner responds
by saying, you're right -- reprehensible
speech is no longer free around here --
then decisions are taken and life carries
on, and as long as the government stays
out of it we do not call it censorship. We
call it
business.

Our
opinion

WE
MAKE plain, in publishing this further
contribution to our dossier on the origins
of anti-semitism, that we do not support
terrorism in any shape or form.
But
we do support free speech, and the right
of journalists to research and write what
they find to be true, as opposed to the
commercial needs of their publishers to
suppress it.

WHY
NOT write to the author to express your
view?

The
above news item is reproduced without editing other
than typographical